State Boards' Leaders Call for Assessments Bearing Consequences

State assessments of student achievement should have consequences
for the students who take them and the schools that give them, a report
from state education leaders says, but test results should not be the
only criterion used to make such judgments.

Moreover, the report issued last week says, states should use
several tests to measure learning, mixing traditional multiple-choice
tests with so-called performance assessments, which ask students to
write a response or perform an activity to show what they know and are
able to do.

For More Information

"The Full Measure: Report of the NASBE
Study Group on Statewide Assessment Systems'' is available
for $12, plus $2 shipping and handling, from NASBE
Publications, 1012 Cameron St., Alexandria, VA 22314; (800)
220-5183.

: In the report by a group of state school board members from the
National Association of State Boards of Education, the officials urge
their colleagues toward steps many of them have been reluctant to take.
Currently, 26 states rely entirely, or nearly so, on multiple-choice
tests to measure student knowledge and skills in all subjects,
excluding tests of writing, according to the study released at NASBE's
annual conference Oct. 16-18 in Kiawah Island, S.C.

But the 19-member panel, representing as many state boards, that
produced the new report wasn't out to lay blame, said Martha W. Wise,
the chairwoman of the study group and a member of the Ohio state school
board. The panel, she said, was aware of other recent, critical reports
on state efforts on standards and assessments, such as those produced
by the American Federation of Teachers and the Cambridge, Mass.-based
National Center for Fair & Open Testing, or FairTest. ("AFT, Foundation Find Good and Bad in States'
Standards," Aug. 6, 1997, and "State Testing Needs Improvement, Study
Finds," Sept. 3, 1997.)

Ideal Characteristics

"Some of those were finger-pointing kinds of studies," she said. "We
wanted to identify the ... framework for all state board members to
review and consider in light of their own state decisions."

The NASBE report, produced over nine months this year, also says
that assessments must be in tune with rigorous state standards, address
specific goals, offer some national and international comparisons,
include all students, and be thoroughly evaluated.

An effective assessment system should also help a state identify
learning gaps and high achievement, the panel says. The state then has
an obligation to follow up, providing help to the students who still
need to meet academic goals or offering more instruction to foster
continued achievement in the most accomplished.

Unfortunately, the report says--quoting the AFT study--just 13
states require or have plans to require remediation for students not
meeting standards, and only 10 back the mandate with funding.

"It's sort of been catch-as-catch-can" for states putting together
their assessment systems, said David Kysilko, who was the lead NASBE
staff liaison to the group.

High Stakes' Downside

While the school boards group says assigning consequences, such as
promotion to the next grade, is an "essential element of a state
assessment system," it recommends that assessment results never be used
as the sole factor in dispensing rewards or sanctions. Or, it says,
state assessments should be used in "high stakes" ways other than
graduation or promotion, such as for conferring diplomas bearing
special endorsements.

Denying a diploma based only on test scores, when the student is
otherwise qualified to graduate, the group says, "means that students
who do well in school but perform poorly on the state assessment may be
unfairly penalized by a one-shot evaluation of their accumulated school
work."

The report also warns that high-stakes tests can have many
unintended negative consequences. Too often, the report says, the
curriculum in a state with high-stakes tests "narrows to little more
than test content, and teachers spend an inordinate amount of class
time 'prepping' students for the tests."

Such tests can also encourage cheating if sanctions are based on
test results, the report says, and they can be especially harmful for
high-poverty, minority students if drilling for the test replaces a
full, rich curriculum.

But the NASBE group's endorsement of high-stakes testing, even with
its caveats, is a potential lightning rod for controversy. "It
definitely was a tough issue for us," Mr. Kysilko said.

But Ms. Wise, whose state ties test performance to graduation and
has successfully fended off legal challenges, said high stakes are key.
"Unless we say these are tremendously important for our students and
then tie high stakes to them," she said, "students and others will tend
to find excuses for not taking the tests [or] for not achieving high
scores."

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.